Comment of the Week: Anti-Christian Atheists
I am not a Christian, but I am no longer anti-Christ. I have a full acceptance of evolution, a strong interest in science, and a healthy respect for it. Toward the end of the unauthorized collection of essays, *The Theory of Everything,* Stephen Hawking sounds very much like an agnostic when he states that he does not know how or why anything exists at all, including the laws of thermodynamics. The father of evolutionary theory, Charles Darwin, began as a Christian, became an atheist, and ended his days as an agnostic. And why is it that atheists often seem so vehement against agnostics as a cop out? (As faced with the cirucmstantial evidence of all order in the universe, agnosticism it is the least faith-based perspective, more objective than the assumption of atheism.) And why do atheists so readily lump agnostics in with themselves on top of that?
It is not necessary to be a Biblical creationist or discount evolution and the big bang to believe in something more. It is possible to acknowledge some validity to the Bible without being a Christian. And it is possible not to be a Christian without being against all Christians, or Christ.
[original post]
Agnosticism is only a "cop out" when someone tries to improperly use agnosticism as if it were a "third way" between atheism and theism. It's no such thing because agnosticism is about knowledge and is thus compatible with both atheism and theism. Everyone either has present in their minds a belief in some sort of god or they do not; if they do they are theists and if they do not they are atheists. They might also be agnostic on top of that or they might not. That isn't an attempt to "readily lump agnostics in with" atheists, it's just a simple observation of reality.
It's true that it is possible to not be a Christian and not be anti-Christian, but isn't it interesting that Mike offers no reasons — not even bad ones — for not opposing Christian beliefs, Christian institutions, Christian influences, and Christian power? Presumably he has such reasons and that's why he's pro-Christian despite not being Christian himself, but he has absolutely no business criticizing people for criticizing Christianity if he won't trouble himself to explain those reasons. That's very much like saying "Christianity is bad" without saying why. I suppose an atheist might try to say that, but I wouldn't hesitate to call them on it because it's unreasonable, irrational, and inappropriate.
Not unlike Mike's comments.
Comments
>Stephen Hawking sounds very much like an agnostic when he states that he does not know how or why anything exists at all, including the laws of thermodynamics.
The relationship between this and agnosticism is pretty tenuous. Hawking has also said this:
“Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there’s no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.”
So, Hawking’s stance is that it’s unjustified to claim any knowledge of what came before the Big Bang, and one might as well say it all started at the Big Bang. It seems he’s saying in the first section that it’s unjustified to posit god as a source (or anything else as a source) without any information to work from. And in the latter section, he’s clearly claiming that claiming supernatural agency is unjustified as an explanation for anything we know based on what we have in the here and now.
No knowledge of gods–yes, that part is agnostic. Presuming gods is unjustified and unnecessary–that part is clearly atheistic. It sounds as though Hawking is, as many other atheists, an agnostic atheist.
>And why is it that atheists often seem so vehement against agnostics as a cop out?
Most of the atheists who slam agnostics, themselves are ignorant of what “agnosticism” actually is. It would be foolish for an atheist to lambaste an agnostic, since the atheist is most likely an agnostic himself. I don’t know of any atheists who claim they have knowledge of gods, but they refuse to believe in them despite the information they have that gods exist. Most atheists will say that there is no information/knowledge about gods, and that this is at the core of their justification for their own disbelief.
>As faced with the circumstantial evidence of all order in the universe, agnosticism it is the least faith-based perspective, more objective than the assumption of atheism.
Agnosticism does not absolve one of making a theism/atheism choice; although it can sometimes be part of the support for such a choice. An agnostic theist claims that although there is no knowledge of gods (no reason to believe in them), he will believe in them regardless. And the agnostic atheist says that without reason to believe in gods (faced with a total lack of knowledge concerning gods) he cannot support belief in them (in the same way one could not support a personal belief in fairies without some some actual knowledge–some real information–upon which to base that belief).
>And why do atheists so readily lump agnostics in with themselves on top of that?
Because it is not rational to say “I know nothing about the existence of any gods—but I’m going to believe in gods anyway.” Most atheists rely on agnosticism as the crux of their atheism. But theists must either deny agnosticism altogether, or accept it (rendering their own belief irrational). Theists either deny there is no knowledge of gods (most common among apologists); or they say they have no knowledge of gods, but believe they exist anyway (less common and completely irrational).
Atheism is the rational outcome of agnosticism. That is why atheists lump themselves with agnostics. A person can be an agnostic and a theist–but that requires disregarding their agnosticism, not using it to support their stance. It undermines theism, so the agnostic theist makes no sense. Yes, there are such people. But it’s an odd combination, and one that defies all reason. Atheism is the only rational choice for the agnostic. And so the two are generally paired. And since most theists claim they do know a thing or two about god/s, they’re not agnostics.
Most atheists are agnostics, and most theists are not agnostics. This is why atheists claim agnostics among their numbers.
I don’t have any issues with the claims in his last paragraph. But I would respond with something like “so what?” or “And…?” Is there a point? Or is he just making observations?
>As faced with the cirucmstantial evidence of all order in the universe
One observation. If the implication here is that this is somehow related to a god or gods, the the person making such a claim cannot label himself an agnostic. He is basically claiming that he thinks he knows that gods are required for order or that order somehow must imply gods. And this means that he thinks he knows something about gods (i.e., something like: they are likely to produce orderly things).
If order implies god to me–or the possibility of god, then I *must* think I know something about gods. In that case, I’m not an agnostic at all.
hey just to say the past 5 nights i’ve prayed that either you or your mother get cancer and die because it would make the world a better place, i’ll continue praying too untill you finally stop posting your negative depressing posts, im keeping an eye on your postings.
Yeah, yeah TRUECRISTIAN- learn to spell and learn to think. Didn’t anyone ever teach you killing is wrong? Or does the taint run so deep in your mind you’d butcher babies if you were told to (see vox for an example)
On the subject of beating up agnostics I did that before I completely understood the label. Now I do it more os because I understand what the word means.
Tracieh says:
Hear hear. Personally, whenever I come across a self-described agnostic, I use the About Atheism definition pages and articles about atheism and agnosticism to define the difference (knowledge vs. belief) and then quiz them on whether or not they believe - and most often they turn out to be atheists (’weak atheists’ or agnostic atheists). It spreads understanding, clears up the muddy waters, and contributes to the de-stigmatization of the term ‘atheist’ - I figure if someone realizes they are an atheist without being angry, mean, bitter, etc. like the caricature of atheists in pop culture, it can only help.
It’s pretty clear that this ATHEITS Is under some pretty heavy demonic
attack. Therefore I highly suggest that we as belivers need to hold her
up in prayer, that Christ will minister to her through Holy Spirit and
that she may find freedom in Him. I also highly suggest that until she
is brought to a place of repentance or has any questions concerning
Jesus (that are true questions and not fight picking remarks) we pay
her absolutly no mind. Just keep her in prayer.
God Bless you all
Love always, Your brother in Christ
TRUECRISTIAN
I for one am at a total loss as to how to respond to your statements. No offense intended.
Wow, most of the comments I have read here are truely in depth in their thought. You are each truely aware of who you believe you are if not who or what God may be. I truely admire your insight and concern over the thoughts and writings being discussed. I can only assume by what I have read that you all have me figured out better than I do. You see, I am not an Atheiest because I Do have a firm belief in a higher power and the possiblities of anything greater than we are. I choose to be referred to as Agnostic because I choose not to label or assusme to know the rules, wishes, will, identity, or personality of the higher power, creator, or All if you will. I believe that faith is important for our survival with in this world regardless of who we are or where we come from. Perhaps it is only that which saves us from the insanity that this world wishes to impose upon us. I do not wish to associate myself with Organized religion do to my personal views on the structure or politics each church has with in it’s congregation. Experiences have taught us all different things which form our beliefs and I choose to believe that no choice is wrong. We are all apart of the all and will be accepted as such in life, death, spirit, reincarnation, ar any other asspect you wish to interject. I believe that the teachings of our great philosophers, saints, mythic gods, therological gods and godesses, or leaders of most religions all have the same truths about human life and nature. Christ himself was a wonderful thinker and I would never deny the exsistance of one so love and charished by his followers. As you can see. Yes I do believe. In who or what I don’t deny only am unable to lable. I am a good person, I do right by others, and I make mistakes in my life. I am good intentioned but, I hurt people sometimes. None is perfect and as far as I see it neither is any choice in religion. I love all people and respect all thoughts. I don’t see why I would have to choose one way of life over another just because someone doesn’t understand someone else. I most certainly am not an Atheistic cop out. I have never been Atheist or even considered that there may not be something greater than my own existance however I shall not put down anyone in any other position to believe the same or different. So in closing, the article seemed to sum up the irrational thoughts of misunderstanding among the writter as well as those unsure of the differnces being discussed. I felt bashed and hope that I was able to defend myself adaquately without offense. At the same time perhaps enlighten on the Agnostic choice some of us have chosen to make. May you all have a wonderful existance.
“I also highly suggest that until she
is brought to a place of repentance or has any questions concerning
Jesus (that are true questions and not fight picking remarks) we pay
her absolutly no mind. Just keep her in prayer.”
And this perfectly demonstrates the mind of the fundamentalist. People with different ideas aren’t to be challenged in rational debate, they are to be blackmailed into accepting the ideology.
Agnostic, you sound like an agnostic theist. You are a theist because you believe in a god(s), and an agnostic because you accept that on faith and don’t make claims of knowlege.
On your comments that atheism is a “cop out” and is arrogant for denying a higher power, I do not believe in natural heirarchy, similar to most atheists. Therefore, even if I was a theist, I would not believe in a “higher power”. I do not see how that is somehow arrogant.
It in fact seems a very egalitarian way of looking at existence, as opposed to there being a set order, with god at the top, lesser gods/angels under him, humans under those, non-human animals under all of those etc.
Re:Comment by Agnostic
Apparently, there many different degrees, and definition of the words, Agnostic, and atheist. I relate very closely to your world view.(I am a good person, I do right by others, and I make mistakes in my life. I am good intentioned but, I hurt people sometimes. None is perfect and as far as I see it neither is any choice in religion. I love all people and respect all thoughts.) Have you ever read Thomas Paine where he compares Christianity with Deism? Sounds like you are describing a Deist when you describe yourself.
A link to Thomas Paine.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/deist1999/paine_deism.htm
“I for one am at a total loss as to how to respond to your statements. No offense intended.”
Ron, apparently this fellow is so deluded into thinking that he has a magical sky friend watching over him. Apparently, even though this magical sky friend so powerful; it allows itself to follow the beck and call of a mere human.
I just love it - the stereotypical attack on “ATHEITS” by TRUECRISTIAN (what is it with all the CAPS?). Start off with praying for the death of someone, and ending with “God bless you all, Love always, Your brother in Christ”
It’s amazing how you can say “F@#$ off” with the letters L-O-V-E. Wonder if it relates to the christian concept of sex outside marriage. After all, we’re not married to TRUECRISTIAN, so maybe that means that this “love” he offers us is really sinful and evil after all.
How bizarre.
> Vic: ‘I figure if someone realizes they are an atheist without being angry, mean, bitter, etc. like the caricature of atheists in pop culture, it can only help.’
I think the reason people define themselves as agnostic or any of the other terms besides ‘atheists’ is because of the caricature.
I know that by definition I am an atheist. But in ‘mixed’ company I am very uncomfortable with the word. But I must say that my last 2 months reading these blogs has made me a lot more comforable.
“I figure if someone realizes they are an atheist without being angry, mean, bitter, etc. like the caricature of atheists in pop culture, it can only help.”
When have atheists ever been mentioned in popular culture?
411314, the best known atheist in pop culture is Mike “Meathead” Stivic (played by Rob Reiner) of “All in the Family” TV fame, who once said after a fierce argument about religion, “Thank god I’m an atheist!” LMAO! [My favorite line of the entire TV series.]
Don’t forget Malcolm Reynolds of Firefly/Serenity was also an atheist.
In the recent film “I Am Legend,” Will Smith shouts “There is no god” at his fellow survivor when she tells him she felt God had led her to find him. In the end, Will Smith sacrifices his own life to save hers. In that sense he comes across as a type of atheist savior figure.
hey just to say the past 5 nights i’ve prayed that either you or your mother get cancer and die because it would make the world a better place… Comment by TRUECRISTIAN — January 29, 2008
Nothing fails like prayer.
i’ll continue praying too untill you finally stop posting your negative depressing posts, im keeping an eye on your postings. — Comment by TRUECRISTIAN — January 29, 2008
You’re completely dead to irony, aren’t you?
Is there a reason, aside from sloth, that you leave the “h” out of Christian?
Although I think Agnostic is gone, I want to reply to this:
>I truely admire your insight and concern over the thoughts and writings being discussed. I can only assume by what I have read that you all have me figured out better than I do. You see, I am not an Atheiest because I Do have a firm belief in a higher power and the possiblities of anything greater than we are.
Unless I’m misreading this, it’s an attempt at sarcasm. However, despite claiming to have read the indepth thoughts posted here, Agnostic appears to have overlooked the very first posting, where it says, “Agnosticism does not absolve one of making a theism/atheism choice; although it can sometimes be part of the support for such a choice. An agnostic theist claims that although there is no knowledge of gods (no reason to believe in them), he will believe in them regardless.”
If Agnostic has no knowlege of gods (if he/she is truly agnostic), then he/she has no reason to believe, but believes regardless, and this stance WAS addressed at this strand.
If Agnostic thinks he/she knows even the first thing, the first glimmer of anything about gods, then he/she is NOT an agnostic at all, but a gnostic.
Further Agnostic says, “I choose not to label or assusme to know the rules, wishes, will, identity, or personality of the higher power, creator, or All if you will.”
You believe in a “higher power” (even labeling it “higher” is a claim of something you assume about it’s being). Further, do you really claim that you believe a “higher power” exists, but you have no concept of an idea you hold in your own mind? It would have to be no different to you than “nothing” in that case. If it’s more to you–in your mind–than nothing, then you think it has attributes (otherwise it would be “nothing” to you). And whatever attributes you place on this “power” or “All”–are things you _attribute_ to it (by definition). And since you think this thing has attributes–otherwise you’d call it “nothing”–then you may be gnostic rather than agnostic. If you think there is something to support your believe in “god” (or whatever you label it) then you’re gnostic. If you think there is nothing to support your belief, you are agnostic, but whatever you believe in is then utterly unjustified.
> I most certainly am not an Atheistic cop out
I agree you’re not an atheist cop out. And if you read my post, you’d have read that as well when I said, “Most of the atheists who slam agnostics, themselves are ignorant of what “agnosticism” actually is.” Granted, I went on to point out most atheists are themselves agnostics, but I also qualified that by stating that a person can be an agnostic theist. However, I think it’s far more likely you are a gnostic theist for the reasons I pointed out above.
> I have never … even considered that there may not be something greater than my own existance however I shall not put down anyone in any other position to believe the same or different.
You could hardly seriously put down anyone since you start this sentence pointing out what an utterly closed mind you maintain. As an atheist, I can’t honestly say I’ve never even considered the existence of god. But I have, as you illustrate, met plenty of theists who tell me how they can’t even conceive of the idea of a universe without god. Then, eventually they usually get around to calling _me_ close-minded at some point to not agreeing with them.
Please let me start by assuring you all that sarcasm was never and intent in my earlier comments. Also I did indeed read each and every statement that was written before I made my own. I assure you I never left only have many personal things going on in my life and have little time to engage in such things as this discussion or forum. Not that i opose it just little time of my own.
I am intrigued to say the least by Tracieh’s comments. You have some indepth thinking patterns which in no doupt have contributed to you choices in life. As I said previously you may have more understanding of who I am than I do. I simply told you what I have chosen to call myself and why and never did I claim to have knowledge of any better discription.
Also, I mean this with the uttmost respect that I may have confused some of your comments simply by the aspect of your writting. You obviously have a very high IQ to go with the depth of thought in that head of yours. Thus it is hard to understand much of what you are trying to say with out reading it over and over again. Forgive my asking you to dumb down your comments to my obviously lesser intelligence. However, at the same time please don’t underestamate my curiosity and great interest to our answers of the universe. I believe Education is a life force in itself and the more we educate the more enlightened we become. Everyone has more to learn and we can learn from everyone.
With that said I will try to address your other comments. A “higher power” was just a term that is used and I used to try and make a point. Call this higher power Buda, Mohomed, Jahova, or what ever fits for the person wishing to refer to the “higher power”. Do I nessisarily believe the power is higher? I don’t know. Perhaps I believe on another plain of existance than this it is but, it is not accessible to me here and that when I physically die I may become part of that existance. Maybe. Maybe there is an order of Gods, spirits, angles, fairies, and merfolk. I don’t know.
I have studied (only a few years) the different religions around the world. I probably have not even heard of half. Never finding one that didn’t have beliefs based on something that happened or has happened in the lives of those people beyond our understanding of life itself. With writings and folk lore all we have to go on how can we say yeah or neh to what others believe as truth. Maybe I believe because I want to. Maybe I believe because I have no reason not to. Maybe I believe because within myself it is the only thing that makes sense. Again, I don’t know. Isn’t that what faith is. Believing in something without proof. I have faith that I will find away through my daily struggles. I don’t know how, when, where or why but, I believe I will be OK when it’s all over. I might not but if I believed that would I even try. Isn’t it really about faith.
I have to give you credit though, Athiest. I don’t think I would have the strength to go on in this world if I didn’t believe there had to be “something” more.
I don’t believe I said I had a closed mind. I am open to all possibility. A closed mind does not learn it only debates. On that note, No, Ron, I have not read the article by Thomas Paine on Christianity vs Deism and I thank you for I surely will.
Let me just say in closing I have also re-read every thing that I wrote finding referrences in some of your comments to claims I don’t recall making. Such as:
On your comments that atheism is a “cop out” and is arrogant for denying a higher power, I do not believe in natural heirarchy, similar to most atheists. Therefore, even if I was a theist, I would not believe in a “higher power”. I do not see how that is somehow arrogant.
I don’t recall and did re-read my own comments using the word arrogant. I stated:
I don’t see why I would have to choose one way of life over another just because someone doesn’t understand someone else. I most certainly am not an Atheistic cop out. I have never been Atheist or even considered that there may not be something greater than my own existance however I shall not put down anyone in any other position to believe the same or different.
I’m sorry if you felt that I was calling you arrogant in any way with that comment.
I have other pressing matters to attend to now but, wish to thank you all for your comments to mine and invite any other suggestions in reading material or study in any other religious debates or aspects. It’s all been very interesting.
Oh and TRUECRISTIAN- Confess your faults ONE TO ANOTHER, and pray one FOR another, that ye may be healed. James: 5:16 (never does it say to pray against your fellow man) Judge not lest ye be judged. May your God bless you.
Too all else: Again, may you have a wonderful existance.
I’m sorry to hear that your current life is so awful that it wouldn’t be worth living if it were all you had and if there weren’t something else to look forward to.
Austin, thanks for the sentiment. Don’t get me wrong though. I don’t dwell on my issues and I do believe also that all we go through in life is an educational process. I just hope that when it’s all over my lessons were truely worth learning. That there really is a purpose to it all and that my suffering and pain in this world means something.
I’m sorry to hear that you mere “hope” that your lessons are worth learning and that you aren’t creating purpose yourself. Even if there is some god, it can’t create meaning for you in your life — only you can do that. So, if you aren’t doing it, then it won’t ever exist. By waiting for some other being to do for you, you are responsible for ensuring that it won’t happen.
The average American rarely gets beyond the 14 year old emotional and intellectual level. This applies particularly to religionists who are simply almost organically incapable of exercising their imagination. I have even met people over 60 who have almost completely missed out on life because of this handicap.
To Agnostic:
First:
You don’t know what (or who) you believe in, but you insist that you are not an atheist because “I Do have a firm belief in a higher power and the possiblities of anything greater than we are”. Well, for your information, an atheist is just someone who doesn’t believe in any _gods_, not necessarily someone who doesn’t believe in “anything greater than himself”, and certainly not someone who assumes that he knows the “rules… of the higher power, creator or All” (what do you mean by All, anyway?). So if you don’t believe in gods, you ARE an atheist, regardless of what else you could believe in.
Second:
You don’t know _why_ you believe (which is no wonder since you don’t know what you believe), but that is not what faith is. People who have faith know why they have it. You don’t. As you yourself stated: Faith is believing in something without proof. _Proof_, not reason.
Third:
You say that “the more we educate the more enlightened we become”, but later “With writings and folk lore all we have to go on how can we say yeah or neh to what others believe as truth”. Well, education is (or at least should be) based on science, and it’s precisely science which is able to distinguish truth from fiction.
To tracieh:
I think you’re stretching the label “agnostic” here. You say, correctly, that agnostic is someone who has no knowledge of gods, but than you insist that Agnostic is actually a gnostic because he believes that he knows something about “higher power” or “All” or something like that. Since the agnostic label refers only to the knowledge about gods, he _is_ indeed an agnostic if he claims to have knowledge about something other than gods (like “spirits, angles, fairies, and merfolk”). Of course, since he himself doesn’t to know what (or who) he believes in, it’s impossible to conclude
which is it.
“True”Christian - how can you even suppose to be a Christian when you make comments such as praying for people to get cancer. I suggest you try and remember that vengence is God’s alone and not yours. If you were a “true” Christian you would know this.
>I think you’re stretching the label “agnostic” here. You say, correctly, that agnostic is someone who has no knowledge of gods,
Agreed.
>but than you insist that Agnostic is actually a gnostic because he believes that he knows something about “higher power” or “All” or something like that.
In this case, yes, because he’s equating this to god in his post. He’s saying he calls himself agnostic because of his views regarding this “higher power.” Since agnostic is a label that relates only to gods, why invoke “agnostic” in the note of “higher power” if the higher power is not a god? If he’s talking about aliens–then why is he equating his agnosticism to aliens? Agnosticism has nothing to do with aliens. It only relates to a perspective on gods.
>Since the agnostic label refers only to the knowledge about gods, he _is_ indeed an agnostic if he claims to have knowledge about something other than gods (like “spirits, angles, fairies, and merfolk”).
No. If he claims to have knowledge about things other than god that doesn’t relate to whether or not he’s gnostic or agnostic (in terms of a strand relating to religious definitions). What he thinks he knows about anything BUT a god has no relation to whether or not he is gnostic or agnostic. It’s completely unrelated to his views about god. What he thinks about fairies has no bearing on what he thinks about gods.
>Of course, since he himself doesn’t to know what (or who) he believes in,
In which case his belief is not justified, as I pointed out. As knowning “nothing” about a “thing” means it’s the same as “nothing” to the person.
>it’s impossible to conclude which is it.
That’s my point. If he thinks there might be a god–but has no idea of it’s attributes–and he can’t say he actually does believe in a god, then he’s an atheist agnostic.
If he thinks he believes in something that could be considered god and it has no attributes, he’s not making any sense–since his god is equal to nothing. He’s basically saying god and nothing are the same thing–and what does that mean?
If he believes there is something that could be considered a god, and he makes assumptions about that god’s attributes (he has some idea about what the god he believes in must be, he’s a theist and a gnostic–not an agnostic.
He appears to be saying that he believes in something that might be a god, and it must exist if the universe is orderly (which means this god/god-like something has an attribute known to him–it instigates order).
If this is so, if I’m interpreting this correctly, this would make him a gnostic theist.
Above, I should clarify in my first response, I’m agreeing “that agnostic is someone who has no knowledge of gods.” I do not agree I stretched the label.
I agree that claiming to know something about things other than gods does not equate to agnosticism. That was my mistake, and thanks for pointing it out. But the bottom line remains that this guy is very lost about his beliefs and he needs to clear things out with himself before we can have any kind of reasonable debate with him.
Ok, Wow again. You people reallly make me feel stupid but, I am thrilled that I have caused such debate in my own rite. Since my last comment I had to go look up gnostism (I hope I spelled that correctly) I had truely never heard of it. I don’t know that I have come close to understanding all of their beliefs but, I am intrigued by thier search for knowledge. I am intrigued by their beliefs regarding Jesus. I have also found other writtings on further teachings of Jesus and traveles he made between the ages of 12 and 29. All very interesting.
Yes I am still in search of what I find to be truth. I do believe that my life has purpose. At 36 perhaps I’m unfortunate to still be searching for what exactly that is. However, I am not sorry for what I have done in my life, I am not completely satisfied but, I guess I’m content.
I feel very hummbled by my lack of knowledge compared to what you may have on the subject of religion and appoligize for not being reasonalbe debate material. However, I did not come on to debate. I came on in search of more knowledge and simply tried to defend what I felt personally wronged by. Forgive my intrusion where I obviously don’t belong.
I’m not afraid to live this life and perhaps my purpose is to continue to gain all the knowledge I can on whatever peaks my interests. However, I’m not afraid to die either and I do not fear what the after life may bring. Though I do whole heartedly believe that there is “something” more. I don’t know if it’s God, God’s, Godesses, or the All (which according to my readings is what we and every other living thing are a part of and when we die it’s where or what we all again become one with).
I do believe in an energy that carries on somehow. It might be more negative than positive but, I don’t think it matters. You can’t have one with out the other and I don’t think that anything bad will happen when we die or that we will go some where horrible. If I’m wrong in my belief and if what I know of Athieisnm is true, then when I die it won’t matter anyway. Yet perhaps that is my biggest fear. I do not wish to go into non-existance. I can leave this world but, part of me will carry on. It must. Perhaps reincarnation, perhaps a combined consiousness, perhaps a heaven, or maybe just static in the air but, I know it goes on. I know because I feel it. Science can’t tell me what I feel. This will be my last post. Thanks for your interest in what I have had to say and I shall continue my quest for the truth in what’s to come and who or what is responsible for the now somewhere else. Peace and love be with you all.
But do you people you are responsible for it, or do you believe it is imposed from the outside?
Of course energy carries on. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It does, however, change form - the matter and energy that makes up you will, at some point, acquire new forms which will not be you. The “you” is a particular structure and form of matter and energy which is not eternal, not persistent, and will not survive the death of your brain.
Believing something because you’re afraid of the opposite may be one of the worst possible reasons for holding a belief. Reality is what it is, regardless of what we may prefer or like. Part of growing up has to involve confronting this fact and accepting that what is will often not be what we would like, but we have to deal with this and make the best of it.
No, there is not “it must.” There is no necessity for “you” to carry on. Memories of you will, at least for a while. Work that you do may, for a while longer. But there is no requirement that “you” persist. There is only your fear at not existing.
You didn’t exist before your birth, yet that doesn’t seem to have caused any cosmic problems. I don’t think that your nonexistence after your death will cause any either. Same is true with me and every other human being.
Knowledge is a justified, true belief. What you claim to “know” is not true and you cannot justify asserting it. What you describe is not knowledge, it’s just wishful thinking — patently obvious wishful thinking, too. You don’t want to die and are using that as a reason for insisting that it can’t be true that you will die.
But you will die. Who “you” are as an individual is based on your memories and personality. If either is changed — even while you physically life — then who “you” are will cease to exist. Because both are completely dependent upon your physical brain, then the death of that brain will mean the cessation of your particular combination of memories and personality. That’s the end of you.
Sure it can.
If you base your beliefs on what you wish to be true, then you are not in fact seeking truth. No matter how often you try to tell yourself you are, you won’t fool anyone. So long as you base your beliefs on what you wish to be true, all you are seeking are ways to rationalize what you wish to be true.
That’s not laudable or respectable. In the end, it’s just a bit sad and even pathetic.
‘But do you people you are responsible for it’
Typo? Shouldn’t ‘people’ be ‘believe’?